Mandatory Minimum

According to, The American Criminal Law Review Mandatory Minimums in drug sentencing: A valuable weapon in the war on drugs or a handcuff on judicial discretion, “Mandatory minimums have been around since 1951 when Congress passed the Boggs Act and its enhancements between 1951 an1956”, (1999).  “By 1970 those Mandatory minimums penalties had been deemed unworking”, because of differences in circumstances faced during arrests. Today the bulk of mandatory minimums are handed down under statutes which penalized the possession, importation, exportation, or manufacture or distribution of controlled substances, or that mandate minimum sentence enhancements for the use of firearms during a drug crime, The American Criminal Law Review Mandatory Minimums in Drug Sentencing,1999. Due to circumstantial issues that involve the level of criminal activity and little fish catches big fish mandatory minimums and the Sentencing Guidelines ended up in a clash, The American Criminal Law Review Mandatory Minimums in Drug Sentencing, 1999. Interesting enough, the guidelines were looking for a balance that the opponents of mandatory sentencing say are not there, The American Criminal Law Review Mandatory Minimums in Drug Sentencing, 1999 . The mandatory minimums have certainly been criticized a great deal those against mandatory minimums explain that mandatory sentencing is unfair for those who commit lesser crimes for more realistic reasons. According to, The American Criminal Law Review Mandatory Minimums in drug sentencing: A valuable weapon in the war on drugs or a handcuff on judicial discretion, “the Sentencing Commission, along with the Bar Association, the Congressional Black Caucus, numerous other organizations, argue that the minimus must be abolished in favor of the Guidelines”, (1999). Overall reduction of crime can be attributed by making it known that punishments for crimes will be strict. I do not agree with Mandatory Minimums because each circumstance may be different but I do believe in Judicial Guide lines that inform Judges of what the sentences are and then leave it up to the judge to decide what sentences are appropriate for the crime. Three strike laws may not be fair but they do make criminals think before they commit crimes because the second and third offenders are dealt with harshly.

Critics attacked the minimums for their harsh effect because the statutes disregard everything except the quantity and type of drugs involved in the offense, nothing about the person involved in the offense. The Sentencing Commission also says that they result in a "cliff" effect, and this is an interesting point, where the possession of say 5.00 grams of crack carries a maximum sentence of one year while possession of 5.01 grams of crack results in a minimum sentence of five years.

Citation

Mandatory minimums in drug sentencing: A valuable weapon in the war on drugs or a handcuff on judicial discretion? (1999). The American Criminal Law Review, 36(4), 1279-1300. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230338559?accountid=34544

 

 

Research and locate a news article or op-ed that addresses an issue you believe is relevant to the unit. This resource must address a critical or controversial issue. Please post the article and indicate why it is indeed a critical or controversial issue.

 

Please take a look at the following web page and tell me what you think.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/reconsidering-mandatory-minimum-sentences-the-arguments-for-and-against-potential-reforms

 

This article is especially important because it explains why politicians are for or against mandatory minimum laws. In this article, some of the reasoning is really in-depth and concise.

Bernick, Even & Larkin, Paul (Feb.10.2014). Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and Against Potential Reforms, Heritage.org from source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/reconsidering-mandatory-minimum-sentences-the-arguments-for-and-against-potential-reforms